Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The principles of scientific explanation are not reached ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The principles of scientific explanation are not reached by any process of reasoning.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Each principle of scientific explanation is in some sense self-evident — it 'commands belief of itself' (kath'heautēn einai pistēn) (Top. 100b19–22).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a principle commands belief of itself, it does not require a prior reasoning process to be accepted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle himself acknowledges in Posterior Analytics II.19 that nous grasps first principles only after repeated perception and memory consolidate into experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This inductive pathway from perception through experience to nous constitutes a cognitive process that precedes and grounds the acceptance of first principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the principles of scientific explanation are reached through an empirical-inductive process, even if the final act of recognition is non-inferential.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant argues in the Critique of Pure Reason that synthetic a priori principles like causality are not self-evident but require transcendental deduction to establish their objective validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the principles underwriting scientific explanation require justificatory argument to show they apply to experience, they are reached through a reasoning process, contra the claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Truth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism2 linked

    Related

    Aristotle himself acknowledges in Posterior Analytics II.19 that nous grasps fir...Each principle of scientific explanation is in some sense self-evident — it 'com...If a principle commands belief of itself, it does not require a prior reasoning ...If the principles underwriting scientific explanation require justificatory argu...
    +3 moreShow less
    Kant argues in the Critique of Pure Reason that synthetic a priori principles li...Therefore, the principles of scientific explanation are reached through an empir...This inductive pathway from perception through experience to nous constitutes a ...

    Similar

    The principles of scientific explanation are self-evident and not reac...93%Metaphysics cannot be the science that teaches the method of reasoning...83%Aristotelian scientific explanations are not inferences from observabl...82%The claim that what can be explained scientifically needs no religious...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: empiricism-ancient-medieval
    View source passageHide passage
    Aristotle denies (as we have seen) that the principles of a scientific demonstration are themselves to be reached by way of demonstration (APo. 72b19–20; 93b16–18). But a demonstration (sullogismos) is a strong form of argument, in which conclusions follow necessarily from the premises (APr. 24b18–20). So some weaker form of reasoning could be involved, such as “induction” in our modern sense: a generalization over a collection of particulars. The latter gives rise to the notorious “problem of i
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit